Justin Santos-Ponce v. Robert Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886

Justin Steeven Santos-Ponce (Ponce), a Honduran national who arrived in the U.S. as a minor in 2014, petitioned for review after the BIA affirmed an IJ’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
Ponce’s uncle was killed by gang members when Ponce was a child; the record contains conflicting explanations and does not show Ponce himself was harmed.
Ponce claimed fear of return based on being a Christian and membership in two proposed particular social groups (PSGs): (1) “minor Christian males who oppose gang membership” and (2) the “Santos-Ponce family who have been victims of gang violence.”
The IJ found Ponce credible and that he had a subjective fear, but concluded he had not shown a well‑founded fear tied to a protected ground, rejected both PSGs (on particularity/social distinctness and nexus grounds), and denied CAT relief for lack of government‑acquiesced torture risk.
The BIA affirmed, holding the first PSG was not sufficiently particular or socially distinct and that the record failed to show nexus between family membership and the uncle’s killing or likely future persecution; it also affirmed denial of CAT relief.
This court reviewed PSG legal questions de novo and factual/nexus findings under the substantial‑evidence standard, and denied Ponce’s petition for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Cognizability of PSG: “minor Christian males who oppose gang membership”	Ponce: group is particular and socially distinct; Christian identity distinguishes members.	Wilkinson/BIA: group is not sufficiently particular or socially distinct; adding “Christian” does not change result.	Denied: group not particular or socially distinct.
Cognizability / Nexus for PSG: “Santos‑Ponce family”	Ponce: uncle’s gang killing shows family membership would make him a target.	Wilkinson/BIA: no evidence family membership was a reason; other family members remain unharmed.	Denied: no nexus; even assuming family is a PSG, record fails to show persecution on account of family.
Asylum / Withholding (nexus and future persecution)	Ponce: gangs would target him on account of proposed PSGs; thus meets standards for asylum/withholding.	Wilkinson/BIA: fears amount to generalized gang violence/civil strife without protected‑ground nexus.	Denied: substantial evidence supports conclusion that Ponce failed to show persecution on account of a protected ground.
CAT relief	Ponce: risk of torture upon return due to gang violence.	Wilkinson/BIA: no evidence of past torture by government or likelihood of government‑acquiesced torture.	Denied: substantial evidence supports that Ponce did not establish more‑likely‑than‑not risk of government‑acquiesced torture.

Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2010) (PSG question reviewed de novo)
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 2009) (substantial‑evidence review of nexus)
INS v. Elias‑Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (burden for reversing under substantial evidence)
Ramos‑Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855 (9th Cir. 2009) (young Honduran men resisting gangs failed particularity/social visibility)
Henriquez‑Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (guidance on PSG analysis)
Lkhagvasuren v. Lynch, 849 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2016) (nexus burden rests with petitioner)
Barajas‑Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017) (distinction between asylum and withholding nexus language)
Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2004) (CAT: petitioner must show more‑likely‑than‑not torture)
Delgado‑Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized country violence insufficient for CAT)
Pedro‑Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2000) (failure to meet asylum standard forecloses withholding relief)